On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 04:23:28PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 03:41:56PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:14:05PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: >> >> >> Miklos, >> >> >> >> >> >> Following your comments on the 'stable inodes' series from last week, >> >> >> this series fixes constant inode numbers for stat(2) with any layer >> >> >> configuration. >> >> >> >> >> >> For the case of all *lower* layers on same fs that supports NFS export, >> >> >> redirect by file handle will be used to optimize the lookup of the copy >> >> >> up origin of non-dir inode. >> >> > >> >> > I was trying to run unionmount-testsuite (original from dhowells) and I >> >> > disabled layer check. Looks like empty directory rename test fails. >> >> > >> >> > *** >> >> > *** ./run --ov --ts=0 rename-empty-dir >> >> > *** >> >> > TEST rename-empty-dir.py:10: Rename empty dir and rename back >> >> > ./run --rename /mnt/a/empty100 /mnt/a/no_dir100 >> >> > /mnt/a/empty100: Unexpected error: Invalid cross-device link >> >> > >> >> >> >> Strange... I can't find code in recent times when this used to work >> >> It certainly doesn't look like it should work with kernel v4.10 >> >> and redirect_dir=off. >> >> I couldn't the point of regression by looking at the change log. >> >> You'd need to bisect to find the regression patch. >> >> >> >> Are you not compiling kernel with redirect_dir? >> >> CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS_REDIRECT_DIR=y >> > >> > I noticed that I am running with REDIRECT_DIR=n. >> > >> > I also re-ran the tests without your patches and test is still broken. So >> > it is not due to your current patch series. >> > >> > It has been long time since I ran these tests. I suspect that we might >> > have changed this behavior during redirect directory patches. >> > >> > So question is, is this a regression or expected behavior. That is with >> > REDIRECT_DIR=n, renames of empty directory will be denied too. >> > >> >> It must be a regression, although I can't think why anyone would care. >> If one really cares about renaming lower empty directories, why not enable >> REDIRECT_DIR? > > I will enable it now. I just had an old config and ran into this. > > But this does raise the question unionmount-testsuite need to be > maintained somewhere so that it acts as a baseline to figure out if > new patches broke some existing tests. > > I can go by the tree you are maintaining but currently that's broken too > with REDIRECT_DIR=n. > Right. I have given some though about what's the best way to handle this. Probably need a test flag --noredirect. I'll add this to my TODO... BTW, I try to keep the branch overlayfs-devel uptodate for testing latest features. It could be rebased, but I'll make an effort not to. If there is a need for a more stable non-rewindable branch, let me know. > >> >> >> >> >> I guess not. If you do compile or mount with -o redirect_dir=on, >> >> you will need some minimal patches to unionmount-testsuite >> >> that set the expectations correctly for directory rename. >> >> >> >> The last stable branch I have from testing v4.10 is this: >> >> https://github.com/amir73il/unionmount-testsuite/commits/ovl_rename_dir >> >> >> >> But you may as well take my most recent branch for testing const ino: >> >> https://github.com/amir73il/unionmount-testsuite/commits/overlayfs-devel >> > >> > I guess I should start using your copy of unionmount-testsuite. >> > >> > Vivek
